State Of North Carolina v. Greene
| Decision Date | 07 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | NO. COA09-1327,No. 06 CRS 50169,No. 06 CRS 50171,No. 06 CRS 50170,COA09-1327,06 CRS 50169,06 CRS 50170,06 CRS 50171 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LISA LOUISE GREENE, Defendant. |
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General David J. Adinolfi, II, and Assistant Attorney General Charles E. Reece, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Barbara S. Blackman, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 8 February 2008 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Cabarrus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 May 2010.
Defendant Lisa Louise Greene appeals from her convictions of two counts of first degree murder under the felony murder rule, possession of marijuana up to a half ounce, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. After careful review, we find no prejudicial error.
The evidence at trial tended to establish the following facts: Daniel Macemore, age 10, and Addison Macemore, age 8, were killedin a house fire on 10 January 2006. The children both lived with their mother, defendant, in Midland, North Carolina. Early that morning, defendant's neighbor awoke to the sound of barking dogs. Upon investigating what was disturbing them, the neighbor found defendant sitting in the grass across from her home. When she approached defendant, defendant asked for help and said that she had "hurt her ankle." Defendant asked the neighbor to call 911 because she had lost her phone. The neighbor called 911, reported the injury, and went out to defendant with the phone so that she could speak with the operator. As defendant was being handed the phone, she told her neighbor that her house was on fire, and her children were inside. At trial, the neighbor said that she was certain that when she first spoke with defendant she only told her that her ankle was hurt.
When the paramedics arrived at the scene, they observed defendant talking incoherently, half lying on the ground, and unable to indicate specifically where her house was located. When firefighters arrived, defendant did not mention that her children were in the house until asked. Once firefighters were able to enter the home, they discovered that both children were dead in one of the bedrooms. Firefighters testified that it was strange "like they didn't try to get out[.]" Firefighters also testified that normally "people will huddle together" when they are scared. However, the boy and girl were found in separate places in the room.
After defendant was informed that her children were dead, the defendant became hysterical. Witnesses at the scene observed that defendant would become more animated when more people were around, and it appeared that her hysteria was "contrived." Defendant was sent to the hospital and treated by Dr. Robert Chen. Dr. Chen testified that defendant "seemed upset, but she did not have any respiratory difficulties." Defendant's foot, which she claimed had been burned, only had minimal redness and was classified as a first degree burn, like sunburn. Dr. Chen testified that it was possible that the redness resulted from walking outside in the cold without shoes. Defendant was discharged from the hospital that evening.
Throughout the trial several witness testified that defendant did not want her children. The children's father testified that defendant was very upset when she got pregnant with Addison, "she did not want Addie." He testified that towards the end he had heard defendant calling his daughter a "little bitch" and his son, a "little bastard." Debbie Harkey, an acquaintance of defendant's, testified that defendant would humiliate her daughter while she played with other friends. Harkey testified that defendant stated that having kids was the biggest mistake she had ever made, and that she hated her kids. The owner of the hair salon defendant frequented testified that defendant was "very ugly" to her children and had said she wished she never had them. Many other witnesses, including other hairdressers at the hair salon, parents of children who were friends with Addison, both Addison and Daniel's teachers, and members of defendant's biker club testified to similar behavior.
Detective Kevin Pfister, with the Cabarrus County Sheriff's Department, and SBI Special Agent Charles Ghent were the lead detectives on the case and first met with defendant while she was in the hospital. Detective Pfister informed defendant that they were investigating the fire and requested consent to search her home. Defendant gave consent and the detectives returned to the home where they found marijuana in defendant's bathroom. After searching defendant's trailer, the detectives went to speak with defendant at her sister's home. Defendant told the detectives that she had lit two candles in Addison's bedroom and put the kids to bed. She said that after she lit the candles she went to the living room, laid down, and awoke with the house on fire. Defendant then went to Addison's bedroom and grabbed the door knob which was very hot. Defendant stated that she had to use a blanket to open the door. When defendant entered she saw blankets burning in the room and told the children to get on the bed while she went for help. Defendant also told detectives that she tried to stomp the fire out with a nearby blanket.
While defendant was retelling her account of the fire, the detectives noticed that defendant had no burns on her hands from the door knob, and no injuries on her legs from where she claimed she had attempted to stomp out the fire. Detectives obtained the clothes that defendant had worn that night and found that the pants were not burned or singed.
In a second interview with the detectives at the police station, defendant told detectives that on the evening of the fire she gave herself, and each of her children, a "drowsy allergy pill." Later that night she went back to check on the children and "caught [a] blanket on fire." She went out of the room, closed the door, and dropped the blanket by a bookcase. Defendant said she left the blanket there and went back downstairs. Later she said that she saw a lot of smoke and fire and went back to the bookcase where she thinks she might have burned her foot. Defendant stated that she then grabbed her purse and went outside. Defendant was read her entire statement and given the opportunity to make revisions. Defendant made several changes and initialed each correction.
Later that day, out of concerns that defendant may not have given them the entire story, the detectives re-questioned defendant. Defendant confessed that she had not told the entire truth, and, in another written statement, defendant admitted to having set a blanket on fire while in the bedroom where the children were asleep. Defendant then left the room without trying to wake her children. Defendant then placed the burning blanket by the bottom two shelves of the bookcase outside of the children's room. Defendant laid down in a recliner in the living room for an unspecified amount of time and then she left the trailer.
Subsequent autopsies of the children showed that they both died of smoke inhalation and had diphenhydramine in their systems. Diphenhydramine is a common allergy drug. Experts for the Statetestified at trial that the origin of the fire was the alcove where the bookcase had been and that most of the damage to the room where the children were found was in the form of heat damage. This was consistent with defendant's confession. The defense offered three experts that stated that the fire originated in the children's bedroom.
On 30 January 2008, the jury found defendant guilty on all charges and defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.1 Defendant timely appealed to this Court.
Defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress her statements. In reviewing a trial court's order denying a motion to suppress, the court's findings of fact regarding "the admissibility of a defendant's statements are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting." State v. Eason, 336 N.C. 730, 745, 445 S.E.2d 917, 926 (1994), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 1096, 130 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1995). However, "a trial court's determination of the voluntariness of a defendant's statements 'is a question of law and is fully reviewable on appeal.'" State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 430, 683 S.E.2d 174, 203 (2009) (quoting State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 339, 572 S.E.2d 108, 124 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (2003). Consequently, "[c]onclusions of lawregarding the admissibility of such statements are reviewed de novo." Id.
It is fundamental that "[v]oluntary confessions are admissible in evidence against the party making them; involuntary confessions are not." State v. Livingston, 202 N.C. 809, 810, 164 S.E. 337, 338 (1932). A confession is voluntary "[i]f, looking to the totality of the circumstances, the confession is 'the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker[.]'" State v. Hardy, 339 N.C. 207, 222, 451 S.E.2d 600, 608 (1994) (quoting
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225-26, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 862 (1973)). Our Supreme Court has set out several non-exclusive factors to be considered in assessing whether a statement is voluntary: (1) the length of the interrogation; (2) the defendant's age and mental condition; (3) whether the defendant had been deprived of food or sleep; (4) whether the defendant was in custody; (5) whether the defendant was deceived; (6) whether the defendant was held incommunicado; (7) whether threats of violence were made against the defendant; (8) whether promises were made to obtain the confession; (9) whether the defendant's Miranda rights were violated; and (10) the defendant's familiarity with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial